- What is Amphibian Species of the World?
- How to cite
- How to use
- Structure of the taxonomic records
- Running log of additions and changes, 2025
- Logs of changes and additions, 2014–2024
- What is the right name?
- Curator's blog
- History of the project, 1980 to 2024
- Comments on amphibian taxonomy relating to versions 3.0 to 6.2 (2004 to 2024)
- Scientific Nomenclature and its Discontents: Comments by Frost on Rules and Philosophy of Taxonomy, Ranks, and Their Applications
- Contributors, online editions
- Contributors and reviewers for Amphibian Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference (1985)
- Versions
- Museum abbreviations
- Links to useful amphibian systematic, conservation, collection management, informational, and/or regional sites
- Links to useful FREE library sites
- Copyright and terms of use
Chiasmocleis albopunctata (Boettger, 1885)
Engystoma albopunctatum Boettger, 1885, Z. Naturwiss., Halle, 58: 240. Type(s): Not stated; holotype is ZMB 10588 according to Bauer, Günther, and Robeck, 1996, Mitt. Zool. Mus. Berlin, 72: 263. Type locality: "Paraguay, Amer. merid".
Chiasmocleis albopunctata — Méhely, 1904, Ann. Hist. Nat. Mus. Natl. Hungarici, 2: 210; Nieden, 1926, Das Tierreich, 49: 72; Parker, 1934, Monogr. Frogs Fam. Microhylidae: 119.
Gastrophryne albopunctata — Stejneger, 1910, Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, 23: 166.
Chiasmocleis (Chiasmocleis) albopunctata — de Sá, Tonini, van Huss, Long, Cuddy, Forlani, Peloso, Zaher, and Haddad, 2018 "2019", Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 130: 206.
Common Names
White-spotted Humming Frog (Frank and Ramus, 1995, Compl. Guide Scient. Common Names Amph. Rept. World: 88).
Distribution
Eastern Bolivia, northern Argentina, Paraguay (Alto Paraguay, Amambay, Canindeyú, Central, Concepción, San Pedro provinces), and Brazil (Goiás, Mato Grosso, Mato Grosso do Sul, Minas Gerais, and São Paulo); possibly into extreme northeastern Argentina. See comment.
Geographic Occurrence
Natural Resident: Bolivia, Brazil, Paraguay
Comment
See comment under Chiasmocleis centralis. See account by Cochran, 1955 "1954", Bull. U.S. Natl. Mus., 206: 362–363. Advertisement call described by De la Riva, Márquez, and Bosch, 1996, Am. Midl. Nat., 136: 418–422. Redescribed and accounts provided by Caramaschi and Cruz, 1997, Herpetologica, 53: 259–268, and Cruz, Caramaschi, and Izecksohn, 1997, Alytes, 15: 49–71. Köhler, 2000, Bonn. Zool. Monogr., 48: 145, provided a brief account. Brusquetti and Lavilla, 2006, Cuad. Herpetol., 20: 21–22, briefly discussed the range in Paraguay. Oliveira and Giaretta, 2006, Zootaxa, 1353: 63–68, reported on larval morphology and the advertisment call. Brusquetti and Netto, 2008, Herpetol. Rev., 39: 362, provided a new record for Paraguay and discused the range. Silva, Prado, Vasconcelos, Santos, and Rossa-Feres, 2009, Check List, 5: 314–316, mapped the range in Brazil, provided additional localities, and provided a photograph. Jansen, Bloch, Schulze, and Pfenninger, 2011, Zool. Scripta, 40: 567–583, reported on genetic variation in Bolivia. Carvalho, Teixeira, Martins, and Giaretta, 2013, Herpetol. Notes, 6: 439–446, reported on intraspecific variability of the advertisement call. Weiler, Núñez, Airaldi, Lavilla, Peris, and Baldo, 2013, Anf. Paraguay: 114, provided a brief account, image, and dot map for Paraguay. Peloso, Sturaro, Forlani, Gaucher, Motta, and Wheeler, 2014, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 386: 26–30, provided an account and placed this in their Chiasmocleis albopunctata clade. Schulze, Jansen, and Köhler, 2015, Zootaxa, 4016: 82–84, described, diagnosed, and pictured the larva. With the exclusion of Chiasmocleis bicegoi from this synonymy on the basis of molecular data by de Sá, Tonini, van Huss, Long, Cuddy, Forlani, Peloso, Zaher, and Haddad, 2018 "2019", Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 130: 207, it became clear that dense taxon sampling within nominal Chiasmocleis albopuntata is needed to discern it internal taxonomic structure. and verify the range. Ferraro, Blotto, Baldo, Barrasso, Barrionuevo, Basso, Cardozo, Cotichelli, Faivovich, Pereyra, and Lavilla, 2018, in Vaira, Akmentins, and Lavilla (eds.), Cuad. Herpetol., 32 (Supl. 1): 17–19, noted that the taxonomic status of the populations in Argentina remain problematic. Neves, Yves, Pereira Silva, Alves, Vasques, Coelho, and Silva, 2019, Herpetozoa, Wien, 32: 113–123, provided habitat information and records for western Minas Gerais, Brazil. Vaz-Silva, Maciel, Nomura, Morais, Guerra Batista, Santos, Andrade, Oliveira, Brandão, and Bastos, 2020, Guia Ident. Anf. Goiás e Dist. Fed. Brasil Central: 158–159, provided an account for Goiás and the D.F., Brazil. Eterovick, Souza, and Sazima, 2020, Anf. Serra do Cipó: 1–292, provided an account, life history information, and an identification scheme for the Serra de Cipó, Minas Gerais, Brazil. Santos, Feio, and Nomura, 2023, Biota Neotrop., 23 (3:e20231486): 1–43, characterized tadpole morphology as part of an identification key to the tadpoles of the Brazilian Cerrado.
External links:
Please note: these links will take you to external websites not affiliated with the American Museum of Natural History. We are not responsible for their content.
- For access to general information see Wikipedia
- For additional sources of general information from other websites search Google
- For access to relevant technical literature search Google Scholar
- For images search CalPhoto Images and Google Images
- To search the NIH genetic sequence database, see GenBank
- For additional information see AmphibiaWeb report
- For information on conservation status and distribution see the IUCN Redlist
- For information on distribution, habitat, and conservation see the Map of Life
- For related information on conservation and images as well as observations see iNaturalist
- For access to available specimen data for this species, from over 350 scientific collections, go to Vertnet.